What do you consider 'gamey'?

[jwolf]

why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel

This would be more logical, but I assume it would be far more complex to code. It is true that there is an inevitable amount of planning ops around the withdrawal dates. Particularly for certain ground units, use them or lose them anyway. I don't see a good way around this issue.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel

This would be more logical, but I assume it would be far more complex to code. It is true that there is an inevitable amount of planning ops around the withdrawal dates. Particularly for certain ground units, use them or lose them anyway. I don't see a good way around this issue.

There is an easy way around it - set "No Unit Withdrawals".[;)]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

Thus far, the only thing that bugs me to the point of commentary is the strict adherence to withdrawal, particularly of naval units.

If—for some unavoidable reason—a particular ship cannot be withdrawn (possibly it's limping somewhere badly damaged, etc.)—why not be given an option of withdrawing a comparable vessel, be dinged a few PP, and call it square? Why the Draconian punishment of endless penalties for a specific ship that, as of now, can't do London/Washington any good in the Atlantic anyway?

Too, in some ways, looking forward to withdrawal schedules and planning around those is gamey as well.

The alternatives are worse and much more difficult to accommodate with the code.

Alfred

[rms1pa]

sad to say i had an R class heavely damaged sent it to bombard singapore. vertical withdrawl.

rms/pa

[jwolf]

vertical withdrawal

I've seen the tactic described before, but not by that euphemism. Nice phrase.

[zeezeeazeezee]

I find I can split an Allied air combat task force in two and have each half refuel the other, but I have only upgraded to 23 not 24.

[spence]

Historically, the squadrons assigned in the Philippines lost most of their ground crews and pilots as the Japanese tide swept over both the Dutch East Indies and Philippines. The US thus disbanded those destroyed squadrons along with the provisional squadrons that had been created to try to reinforce them. In the game all of those squadrons are thus disbanded/withdrawn around the middle of March 1942: that would be 3 squadrons of A-24s and 4 squadrons of P-40Es. IRL they were all pretty much destroyed in combat but the hard and fast withdrawal of the 100 odd fighters and 40 odd bombers seems a bit gamey. If they had made a difference in the campaign it seems unlikely that the USAAF would have disbanded the squadrons which had made the difference in the midst of the campaign. It seems pretty much a game mechanism to allow the Japanese to achieve their historical conquest of the DEI.

[CaptHaggard]

Re withdrawals, I had not grokked the difficulties of coding an alternative. It is, after all, a minor quibble.

Thank you for your responses, gentlemen.

Hag

[glyphoglossus]

Hmm. I'm just a new player here, so have yet to absorb the ethics of the community, so take the following for what that's worth.

I would consider "gamey" something that exploits game mechanics in a way that simply beyond the realm of physics in real life. But not one that uses tactics, strategies, approaches, etc. that, while may not have been tried IRL, would not be physically impossible if a person with sufficient clout decided it should be done.

So, by that criterion, the specific example that you list is not gamey, because it is within the possibility of this universe. Sure, a civilian ship out as bait to absorb hits would be politically/humanitarianly/socially difficult to accept in the real world in WW2, especially on the USN side, but it would not be unthinkable. And, for e.g., in the IJ forces, maybe even more politically realistic/possible then, e.g., free transfer of air units from an IJA to IJN HQ, or even IJA air support IJN missions and vice versa which everyone accepts without question?

Similar tactics of deception --- a couple of barge TF's, used to distract air raids while the actual unloading is going on nearby.

Another one: a bunch of barges or empty ships used as bait to bring in the air strikes to be attacked, so that the enemy carriers give away their position?

Or maybe as part of trap to chew up the enemy bombers?

None of this seems gamey to me. An appalling waste of relatively big capital resources (ships/barges), but that is down to the judgement of the player whether the payoff is worth it or not.

I am reminded of Operation Pointblank, where bombers where sent out again and again and again, often deliberately avoiding safer routes or routed near or over enemy airfields, just so the Luftwaffe could be drawn up to fight and attrited away. True, these were military resources rather than civilian ones, and a bomber is cheaper than an AK, but the principle is the same.

[BBfanboy]

Aircraft will not normally attack barges if there are other targets about. In fact it is hard to get them to attack barges unless they are the only target and you set fighters or attack bombers at 100' to strafe.

[glyphoglossus]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Aircraft will not normally attack barges if there are other targets about. In fact it is hard to get them to attack barges unless they are the only target and you set fighters or attack bombers at 100' to strafe.

Well, that saved my from an embarrassingly disastrous deception operation!

Thanks.

When playing as Allies, I saw my Air Combat TF's striking barges, and I found that errant/lone AK transports tootling along were great to draw AI carrier strikes, so I thought I could combine the two and get the benefit of the bait/decoy TF while paying the cost of barges rather than the much more precious AK's .... good to know that this probably would not have worked!

[el lobo]

I find it interesting as to what some people call "gamey."

It is a purely subjective term with no formal, or agreed upon criteria. Essentially it is a meaningless term.

On the other hand, the Devs have created several tools. I suspect that some are based on historical situations, to make game playing easier, or, for reasons that are unknown to us players. These tools include things like, "magic move", pilot training from day one, ZOC, hexside control, instant pilot replacements, the magic highway, R&D, aircraft/engine production, resizing of air groups, etc. Obviously many of these are Japanese options only.

All of these tools could be, many have been, called gamey by someone.

There are also exploits that may be caused by coding errors, unintended consequences of coding, or something overlooked. Most of these have been pointed out and corrected, others may be being used unbeknownst by the player.

[paradigmblue]

I was called out for using a gamey strategy in one of my PBEM games. I had set several of my beat up fighter squadrons to train at a front line base while other squadrons picked up their slack. It turns out that squadrons that are set to train do not get swept by fighter sweeps, but do intercept bombers (You get the message "squadron xxx is caught up in the attack". Essentially I was (unknowingly) exploiting an error in the code that allows that behavior.

As soon as I was made aware of what was going on, I took those squadrons off training (If I was a better player they shouldn't have been training at a front line base anyway), but to me it's one of the few things that I actually consider gamey - I'm sure that the devs did not intend for training to make fighters immune to sweeps while still allowing them to intercept.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
It turns out that squadrons that are set to train do not get swept by fighter sweeps, but do intercept bombers (You get the message "squadron xxx is caught up in the attack".

They also suffer badly against any escort fighters, so it is not particularly gamey.